A Question for believers in global warming.

[Wry Catcher]

Jack Hays:

I'm sorry but this is not unscientific hogwash at all.

New Studies of Permian Extinction Shed Light on the ‘Great Dying’ - The New York Times

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...y-First-Century.pdf?origin=publication_detail

The Clapham and Payne study was rigorous and extensive and has been confirmed by other later studies. So, as usual, you're wrong and just denying the scientific evidence. The modern oceans are regressing back to a more primitive state as invertebrates are filling voids caused by vertebrate fish species declining and a lack of predation by those reduced vertebrate stocks. Deforestation is happening in Africa and South America to mention but two places and is happening by both man-made means and natural retreat due to less rain. Unfortunately these forests are being replaced by savannah, sahel and deserts rather than new growth forests.

So if you want to debate this, provide some citations to refute the points made, rather than making your usual ad hominem attacks and baseless denials.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Winner!

 

[Robertinfremont]

I have three research degrees.

Your great lakes isn't an example of anything.. nor is your Death Valley example valid. AS I have already explained. You obviously don't understand the difference between world climate patterns.. and local phenomena.

Yes.. climate change has happened in the past. So? Whats your point? When the climate has changed its usually accompanied by mass extinction.

Factually man is releasing into the atmosphere, many of the same gases that coincide with periods of global warming and mass extinction.

Factually the average global temperature has increased faster in 100 years.. than previous warming periods which increased over tens of thousands of years.

None of your examples dispute those facts.

Were you to actually research, I offered excellent examples. Earth has not uniformly warmed and that using your logic kills your reply. There is no such thing as a one climate Earth. It varies a lot from super hot to super cold.

If you did not understand my points, simply ask. Climate has to change a hell of a lot to force mass extinctions. We are not having mass change. Stop alarming people.

 

[jaeger19]

Were you to actually research, I offered excellent examples. Earth has not uniformly warmed and that using your logic kills your reply.

We are talking average earth temperature. Not whether Death Valley has an extreme temperature on Tuesday. You don't have a clue about climate.

If you did not understand my points, simply ask. Climate has to change a hell of a lot to force mass extinctions.

Hmmm.. most studies show that the last ice age.. happened when the earth was an average of just 4 degrees cooler than it is now.

4 degrees. Which happened over tens of thousands of years.

In the last 100 years.. we have had rougly a 2 degree change in average earth temperature.

Think about it for more than a minute...

 

[Evilroddy]

Except that they didn't, and everything you posted was a deliberate lie. There isn't even a reference to "50,000 cellular samples from marine fossils" because even Clapham and Payne are smart enough to know cells do not last 252 million years, but apparently not you.

You just make things up as you go, but you are not very good at it.

Glitich:

From my first source cited in post # 285:

Their study of nearly 50,000 marine invertebrate fossils in 8,900 collections from the Permian period has allowed them to peer into the inner workings of the ancient creatures, giving them the ability to describe precisely how some died while others lived.

Watch who you're calling a liar mack. It was in the source from the New York Times describing the report. I don't have time right now to deal with the rest of your comments but you can rest assured that I will tonight. Try to keep your shorts from knotting until then please and perhaps try debating rather than throwing around baseless accusations.

No cheers for you.
Evilroddy.

 

[jaeger19]

What I don’t agree with is regulations that result in massive loss of jobs and major hit on local economies due to urgent legislated over something that isn’t based on truly solid science. lk

Well that issue isn't really about climate change.. its really about what to do about it. Which is in reality a different matter.

Clean energy is going to be the eventual result of our technological evolution because nobody likes polluted environment. This is just inevitable.

Well..the problem is history has shown us that we usually have to wait until we already HAVE a polluted environment until change begins to take place. I live in a rural area.. that looks pristine to most city folks...

There are lakes and streams where the mercury content in the fish is still to high for folks to safely eat the fish. From mining that occurred decades ago.

When I lived in the big cities.. I saw times when the air quality was so bad that we had a rash of people into our hospital with severe respiratory problems.. some even dying.

Now. that air quality is WORSE..now in those regions.. and people are getting sick and dying. Now please explain how that is possible when according to you.. people won't tolerate that? Think about it for more than a minute...

Now.. why isn't something being done?..

 

[ataraxia]

Just exactly what should the temperature of the earth be? Even if we could control it who gets to decide.

What's a danger is the CHANGE of the averages in what has supported human life. Human life, modern economies, farming, cities, etc... have all grown on and developed based on a certain climate. Start messing with that, and it is the change that is going to hurt. The bigger the change, the worse the damage.

So in answer to your question: the same average temperatures it has been.

Additionally if the earth was a lot warmer, there would be more food for people. The vast amount of land mass in is in the northern hemisphere. If the earth was warmer, northern Canada, Greenland, and all of northern Asia could be farmed for food.

Not if they are under water from all the melted ice.

Midwest farmers are already starting to feel the pinch and starting to cry uncle a little bit. And they ain't seen nuthin' yet.

"Everything is changing": Farmers seek solutions, not slogans, on climate change - CBS News
As climate change bites in America’s midwest, farmers are desperate to ring the alarm | Environment | The Guardian

And you think immigration is a problem now? Wait until all those little islands in the Pacific and all those big cities by the coasts all over the world start going under water.

 

[ataraxia]

Most of the climate studies literally abuse statistics.

What are you a scientist?

 

[Jack Hays]

Edited for word count limits.

Jack Hayes:

Clapham and Payne looked at what killed marine organisms during the Permian Mass Extinction. It found clear evidence in more than 50,000 cellular samples from marine fossils of cell death by anoxia, the complete lack of oxygen. This anoxic cell death leaves tell-tale chemical foot-prints in both cells and well preserved fossils. The study made no attempt to explain why the anoxia occurred but simply and persuasively established that anoxia was the instrument of death for the marine organisms studied. Similar studies have determined that the same cellular deaths occurred in terrestrial organisms.

The volcanic activity has been known about for decades and most palaeontologists believe it played a role, especially the massive eruptions on what is now India's Deccan Plateau. That volcanoes may have triggered the great dying through global cooling or through acid rain fall is not really that important. What is important is that some event killed marine and terrestrial life in droves and that the biological decomposition of that huge biomass triggered eutrophication in aquatic environments and on land dropping O2 levels precipitously and driving up CO2 levels. This caused the even larger Great Dying off the Permian Mass Extinction.

Today we are in danger of low oxygen abysmal sea water rising due to disrupted ocean currents caused by oceanic water warming and alterations in sea water salinity due to polar ice cap melting. Vertebrate and in vertebrate die-backs will provide more biomass for decomposition causing even more eutrophication and depletion of O2 from the oceans. Likewise, as the Arctic warms, massive peat decomposition will consume atmosheric O2 and release huge amounts of methane and CO2 into the atmosphere. I have recently stood in a trundra lowland field which used to be dry, frozen land when I visited in the past. Today the permafrost has melted and it is a stinking, decomposing peat bog pumping out methane bubbles everywhere the eye can see.

So your deluge of the volcanic aspect of the Permian Mass Extinction and the very possible role that global cooling due to suspended particulate matter in the atmosphere is well known but misses the point.

The point is any event, be it global cooling, global warming or something else like disruption of ocean currents which produces global oceanic eutrophication in aquatic environments and global atmospheric eutrophication over terrestrial environments will trigger a cascading mass extinction due to hypoxia/anoxia. Global warming is as capable as global cooling to function as a trigger for such a cascade and there are signs that this is beginning to happen now.

So the volcanoes and the global cooling are just a distraction from the far bigger, global, follow-on process which suffocated the oceans and turned much of the Permian terrestrial environment into low oxygen, hot, dry deserts between 252-248 million years ago.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Anoxia is not a problem.

 

[ataraxia]

Several of our human-like species cousins and relatives died out due to climate change. It's not clear what wiped out the Neanderthals, for example, but there is some evidence that climate change played a role.

But we are far more certain that climate change played a role in the extinction of these other humanoid species:

"The last known members of the Homo erectus species were killed in a "mass death" event between 117,000 and 108,000 ago, scientists have said. By re-analyzing remains first discovered almost a century ago, researchers were able to better confine the date they died, potentially providing a clearer insight into when and why our ancient ancestors went extinct....

In the study, the researchers show that at the time of the mass death, the environment in Java was changing substantially, shifting from open woodlands towards rainforest. This may indicate that Homo erectus extinction was related to the changing climate...

Westaway added that this was a "pivotal period" of environmental and climatic change. "The encroaching warmer and more humid environment would have caused problems for the essentially open forest fauna associated with Ngandong," she told Newsweek. "The new timeline suggests that the drier conditions in Solo River valley containing the site of Ngandong probably persevered for longer than expected."

This region served as a refuge for the remaining population of Homo erectus, she said. "But by 117,000 to 108,000 years ago this refuge could no longer be supported by the prevailing climatic and environmental changes and the Ngandong erectus and its associated fauna disappeared from the fossil record."

Last of the Homo Erectus Killed in 'Mass Death' Event as Climate Change Drove Species to Extinction

The main difference between them and us is that they didn't do it to themselves.

 

[jaeger19]

And coal powered ships were dumping toxic ash into rivers and oceans. Cars used a heck of a lot more fuel than modern cars, so each and every car back then polluted a lot more than an average car today. And replacing the onboard computer in a car is like one of the simplest repairs ever - I’ve done it myself and it takes less than a minute.
But milk was sold in glass bottles. Great! [emoji849]



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And yet my point still stands.

You bring up cars....well yes.. cars are more efficient today.. but.. there are way more cars... so the overall effect is still more pollution.

 

[thedimon]

What are you a scientist?

No, but I have a masters degree and took numerous statistics classes, as well as multiple economics classes and had heavy exposure to real science classes - I did well in chemistry, physics, astronomy and biology.

How about you? How about Greta?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[thedimon]

And yet my point still stands.

You bring up cars....well yes.. cars are more efficient today.. but.. there are way more cars... so the overall effect is still more pollution.

The number of electric cars on the roads increases rapidly. And there are no laws outlawing gasoline or diesel.
I wouldn’t be surprised if gas-diesel burning vehicles become a rare sight in 50 years. This phenomenon will come about on its own. That’s my point. Technology will eventually come about to clean energy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lemmiwinx]

Yeah..no. You realize just how biologically wrong that is?

No I'm hoping you'll enlighten us.

 

[ataraxia]

No, but I have a masters degree and took numerous statistics classes, as well as multiple economics classes and had heavy exposure to real science classes - I did well in chemistry, physics, astronomy and biology.

How about you? How about Greta?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have a doctorate in a science field. But I will be the first to admit that I lack expertise in climate change. So even I don't have the hubris to think I can judge the overwhelming consensus of my colleagues working in that particular field. Greta is just a spokesperson for that view.

So I'm really proud of you for doing well in your chemistry class. But that doesn't give you the background or experience to have any strong opinions on climate change. Sorry. If you took some higher level science classes, you might start to have a better feel for how science actually works.

 

[Jack Hays]

I have a doctorate in a science field. But I will be the first to admit that I lack expertise in climate change. So even I don't have the hubris to think I can judge the overwhelming consensus of my colleagues working in that particular field. Greta is just a spokesperson for that view.

So I'm really proud of you for doing well in your chemistry class. But that doesn't give you the background or experience to have any strong opinions on climate change. Sorry. If you took some higher level science classes, you might start to have a better feel for how science actually works.

[h=2]How Climate Change Pseudoscience Became Publicly Accepted[/h]

 

[jaeger19]

The number of electric cars on the roads increases rapidly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really? lets see electric cars represented about 2.1% of car sales in 2018.. 1.3% in 2017 and .86% in 2016

My milk bottles are looking a lot better.. :lamo

By the way.. what is fueling that purchase of those electric cars... is it the market? Or do you think government incentives.. like tax credits play a role.??? Hmmm

I wouldn’t be surprised if gas-diesel burning vehicles become a rare sight in 50 years. This phenomenon will come about on its own. That’s my point. Technology will eventually come about to clean energy.
.

Sure.. just how much pain does the country have to go through to get there.."on its own"?

And to continue to go through when other countries beat us to the punch?

 

[jaeger19]

No I'm hoping you'll enlighten us.

Start with a high school biology book and start reading.

 

[Evilroddy]

Glitch:

There are several of problems with this study.

They assume "widespread marine anoxia," but provide no evidence of oceanic anoxia anywhere during that period to support that assumption. They failed to include a 2013 study of that period that provides evidence of plenty of oxygen in the world's oceans.

The authors did not assume widespread anoxia. They examined about 50,000 samples from the time of the Permian extinction and by testing the samples determined that most of them died by anoxia. Their conclusion was that there was wide spread anoxia (or severe hypoxia). The biochemistry of the samples indicated low oxygen levels and the presence of chemicals in high concentrations generated by organisms who cannot do aerobic respiration properly. The 2013 study was written after their paper was published in 2012, so not citing it is quite reasonable, given time as a linear concept (just don't tell the anti-matter!)

Then they assume a "major bolide impact" occurred 252 million years ago. Once again without providing any evidence.

Why is a particularly bright shooting star (vaporising meteorite) in the Earth's upper atmosphere important to their case? They speculated that such an event might have happened, no more, no less.

Lastly, they make numerous references to the Siberian Trap eruptions. The only problem with that is the Siberian Traps didn't even start erupting until 4 million years AFTER the third and most massive of the Permian extinction events.

In the scientific method there is something called error analysis. All values have an error range. The four million years fall within a less than 2% error bar range. Dates are not certain things when determined by radio-isotope analysis. The Deccan Plateau eruptions did occur during the Permian mass extinction, so they could be an alternate driver. Ultimately this does not matter because the purpose of the study was to determine how these marine organisms died, not what event or events triggered the Permian Extinction. The authors made that clear in their paper. They were looking for the cause of death, not the smoking gun.

In order to be taken seriously they need to provide evidence for their assertions. They failed to do that. They call such studies "predetermination." They already had the answers they wanted and created a paper to support those answers. That isn't science.

The authors and their teams used biochemistry to detect the foot prints of metabolic distress, hypoxia and anoxia in samples taken from fossilised and preserved Permian organisms. They found chemical in the organism samples which indicated the troika of respiratory distress, hypoxia and anoxia. These signs were found in the chemistry of the fossilised tissues and preserved tissues of the organisms they examined. The found strong evidence for ocean wide hypoxia and anoxia in the biochemistry of shells and cartilage as well as soft tissues, especially preserved mitochondria.

If you disagree with their results reproduce their experimental methods and see if you can falsify their results. That's how science works. Until you can, the theory stands.

There is also no mention of deforestation, or desertification, anywhere in the study you posted. Those were your additions.

You are correct. Since the focus of my initial post was on global marine and terrestrial hypoxia/anoxia, I did not provide references for every thing I said. I was trying to explain a complex set of environmental interactions, not to prove that climate change is causing deforestation and desertification. These linkages are already well understood and the theories have stood the test of time. If you want me to references them, then ask for them politely rather than accusing me of lying as you did in a follow-on post.

Sources:
Molybdenum isotopic evidence for oxic marine conditions during the latest Permian extinction - The Geological Society of America, September 2013, Volume 41, Number 9, pp. 967-970.
Rapid Eruption of the Siberian Traps Flood Basalts at the Permo-Triassic Boundary - Science, July 12, 1991, Volume 253, Issue 5,016, pp. 176-179.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[lemmiwinx]

Start with a high school biology book and start reading.

I was always good at high school biology the girls loved me.

 

[Evilroddy]

Except that they didn't, and everything you posted was a deliberate lie. There isn't even a reference to "50,000 cellular samples from marine fossils" because even Clapham and Payne are smart enough to know cells do not last 252 million years, but apparently not you.

You just make things up as you go, but you are not very good at it.

Glitch:

Glitch: Cells and more importantly organic chemicals do last in fossils for many millions of years, if conditions are right. You can go to the Canadian Arctic and find wood, leaves seeds and twigs which are between 60 and 40 million years old and are fully preserved. You can find fossils far older where the original organic chemicals are preserved for hundreds of millions of years. Fossilised cells of a very primitive nature have been found as much as 3.7-2.5 billion years of age and the fossilisation process can preserve organic chemicals in mineral salt lattices.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[ataraxia]

[h=2]How Climate Change Pseudoscience Became Publicly Accepted[/h]

Shaviv’s position has been looked at carefully, and is proving to be increasingly untenable. You’re clinging to straws.

Claim that cosmic rays are a crucial player for current climate change is unsupported – Climate Feedback

 

[Evilroddy]

[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/27/gregory-wrightstone-exposing-the-mass-extinction-lie/"]

[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]Gregory Wrightstone: exposing the mass extinction lie[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Reposted from Fabius Maximus Website Larry Kummer, Editor Climate change 24 May 2019 Summary: The latest chapter of the climate campaign consists of warnings about a coming mass extinction of species. Here is a stunning analysis of these claims by Gregory Wrightstone. This made a big impact at Wednesday’s House hearings. I doubt you will…[/FONT]
[/FONT][/COLOR]
[URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/27/gregory-wrightstone-exposing-the-mass-extinction-lie/"]May 27, 2019[/URL] in Alarmism.

Jack Hays:

It’s Easy to be Tricked by a Climate Denier - Willard MacDonald - Medium

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

Anoxia is not a problem.

Jack Hays:

You are right, not at this moment in geological history. But then a concrete wall is not a problem for a crash test dummy prior to hitting the wall. But upon contact it becomes a very big problem. The seas and oceans are changing and they are beginning to follow a track which leads to eutrophication, salinity upheavals, die-backs and ultimately hypoxia/anoxia.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Glitch]

Glitch:

The authors did not assume widespread anoxia. They examined about 50,000 samples from the time of the Permian extinction and by testing the samples determined that most of them died by anoxia.

No, they didn't. However, I did notice that you dropped your "50,000 cellular samples" deliberate lie once being exposed. They examined no samples, not a single one. I've read the study, so you can stop your intentional lies.

Their conclusion was that there was wide spread anoxia (or severe hypoxia).

The study is not based upon any evidence whatsoever. They reference other people's work, but include no evidence in their study.

The biochemistry of the samples indicated low oxygen levels and the presence of chemicals in high concentrations generated by organisms who cannot do aerobic respiration properly.

No, they do not because there were never any biological samples of any kind ever taken. Once again, biological organisms do not last 252 million years no matter how often you repeat your deliberate lie. Your lack of education is very obvious. Next you will be claiming they have biological samples of dinosaurs. ROFL!

Why is a particularly bright shooting star (vaporising meteorite) in the Earth's upper atmosphere important to their case? They speculated that such an event might have happened, no more, no less.

The key word here is "speculated." There is no evidence such an event ever occurred. As I said, the study is a case of predetermination. They already had the answers they wanted, so they wrote a paper that supported those conclusions without providing a single piece of evidence. That is not science, it is sheer fantasy on the part of delusional leftists pushing an agenda and your deliberate lies destroys your credibility. I can simply dismiss everything you post out-of-hand since you have serious issues with the truth and make things up willy-nilly.

 

[Jack Hays]

Shaviv’s position has been looked at carefully, and is proving to be increasingly untenable. You’re clinging to straws.

Claim that cosmic rays are a crucial player for current climate change is unsupported – Climate Feedback

Written by someone who doesn't understand the theory.

[h=2]Solar Debunking Arguments are Defunct[/h]